[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
All right, Madam Clerk, please call the next case.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
In Ray MP Reorganization, Ryan Drexler, Peering Pro Se, Gregory Garman for Appellee.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
All right, Mr. Drexler, we can't see you.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
All right, Mr. Drexler, you're the appellant.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
I certainly would.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Around four minutes, please.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Well, the clock is there.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
You can see it on your screen, I hope.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
And so just keep track of your time.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
But I'll try to remind you when you're getting close to your four minutes.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
Please go ahead.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
So I think it's a little bit important to give the overview of the case.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of moving parts in this case.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
And then I kind of get into some of the details of what I think is really important.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
This kind of case centers around one individual, Emporees Ryan Matthew Lane.

[00:01:06] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lane initially provided funding for what was supposed to be a limited arms length investment related to an up listing.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
He was never intended to be involved in management decision-making, but once he inserted himself, he became controlling, hostile, and destructive.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
He treated me as though I'd never invested a single dollar in the company, which I invested well over $20 million.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
He insulted me, called me a liar.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
He ultimately forced the company through an Article 9 sale.

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
What Mr. Lane didn't anticipate that I would later be forced to bankrupt the company and attempt to protect what was remained.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
The Article 9 sale would have stripped everybody of any ability to recover any money from the debtor.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
The biggest mistake I made was stepping down and trusting the process would be fair.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
From that point forward, Mr. Lane did everything possible to ruin my life, both professionally and personally, and obviously making sure that I didn't receive

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
one dollar.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
I tried many times to sit down.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
I tried many times to mediate this, but obviously he never wanted to.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
He wanted to make sure that I wasn't involved in the process at any step of the bankruptcy.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
And obviously at the end of the day, he wanted to make sure that I walked away without any money.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
The plan, the bankruptcy plan was equitably denied on the basis that basically I was put into a certain class and not a secure class, but a class that was just made for me that was underneath the creditors to make sure I wouldn't receive $1.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
I spent a significant amount of resources myself, making sure this plan would never come to light.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
And I was very successful doing that.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
But then I was left with defending myself even more and spending even more money.

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lane's actions went far behind business disputes and ended to personal vindictive territory.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
He made false statements to the SEC regarding my conduct and investment in the company.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
He threatened me directly telling that I'd be broke and that he would kill me on a hill.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
He provided false information to law enforcement in an attempt to have me arrested.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
He made false accusations involving my family, nothing which had ever been proven or sustained.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
He hired a handwriting expert to fabricate evidence despite the fact that the expert had no legitimate handwriting samples.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lane's intimidation attacks is extended to my legal team.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
Several lawyers quit under pressure because of relentless interference, harassment, manipulation surrounding this case.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
On one occasion, Mr. Garman ambushed my counsel by converting an order to show cause into a TRO, proceeding without notice, effectively denying my due process and leaving my lawyer with no time to prepare.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
The Bank Street process was engineered from the start to ensure my exclusion and my financial destruction.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lane was the architect of the plan.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
A plan that was structured to place me in a separate creditor's class, effectively isolating me and guaranteeing that I would not receive $1.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
This was not an accident.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
It was designed to intent to punish me for blocking the earlier Article IX sale.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
He found the perfect ally to conduct the plan.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
Attorney Greg Garment, a lawyer for orchestrating of aggressive loan to own takeovers.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
Mr. Garment's own... Mr. Drexler, we're not going to engage in personal attacks in the argument here.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
So why don't we get to what we're supposed to talk about today, which is the motion for summary judgment and why that ruling was wrong.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
So let's go there.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
That's fine.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
Sorry, ma'am.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
So the summary judgment, there was one summary judgment we had before the plan was

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
Denied that summary judgment was out with the court for a latter part of 1011 months.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
It was initially denied on both parties.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
In December.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
31st of 2024.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
And then the wild files, the wild, the wildfires happened in the state of California.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
The fires were very destructive.

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
I was displaced, my lawyer was displaced, and our court date was coming up.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
I was excited for the court date.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
I thought the court date was going to be a time that we can bring evidence and key witnesses.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
Without us knowing, two weeks after the wildfires, we were asked to do a second summary judgment.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
And basically, which I felt was totally unfair because of the circumstances of the wildfires.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
My lawyer couldn't properly conduct and do a proper summary judgment.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
And I felt that with my due process, because I waited over a year and a half, that a trial was something that

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
we would rely on to produce really good key evidence, which was never allowed to happen.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
So we put a summary judgment into play.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
The summary judgment was based on a lot of, let me just get to my notes over here.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
A lot of the disputes of facts, material facts,

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Mr. Garmin and Mr. Lane said I didn't have any real proof of putting money into the company.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
When Empory first came to give money to the company, I went into an intercredit and a subordination agreement.

[00:07:25] Speaker 00:
They're very adamant about the part that they admitted that I was secured.

[00:07:29] Speaker 00:
Now, the reason they did that is to make sure

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
That they were secured and they were senior secured, which was I agree to.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
But for them to say that I didn't put any money in there and there's no proof there was plenty of proof.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
The key, the key trustee, the key independent director who was put in.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
And the company would not allow me to get any paperwork.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
There was a tremendous amount of paperwork and board minutes and everything else.

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
And I was never allowed to get any of that information.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
And I provided information of my bank accounts.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
But at that point, I felt I shouldn't have had to do that.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
There was SEC, there was SEC filings that I put money into the company.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
We had an agreement, I had an agreement with Empory that I put money in the company.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
And for them saying that I didn't put not one dime into the company, and basically a lot of the summary judgment was based upon that, I think was totally unfair.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
I feel that

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
I should have been allowed my due process in court to talk about all those different points and to have a summary judgment two weeks before our court date, I was completely shocked of how that happened.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
And I think the other side was completely shocked.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
We were all ready to put our case on, even though the natural disaster we had to bring a lot of other people in from his firm to help him out,

[00:09:13] Speaker 00:
I wasn't allowed to put I wasn't allowed to put my case on.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
Basically.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
And the professionals took all the money out of the estate.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
It was a very robust company.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
The problem is why we went into bankruptcy is that basically we buy protein powder.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
And at that time, because of COVID, the production of cheese wasn't plentiful.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
So our prices went up to 550.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
So that year we lost a tremendous amount of money.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
So after they took over and I stepped down, the prices went back to $1.90.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
And the company was doing really, really well.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
But obviously, the professionals, Empory, they took all the money out.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
And not that I was asking for my money.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
I wasn't asking for my total money.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
We also went into a mediation with Judge Zive, and there was just, you know, these arguments basically was quite known that Mr. Lane was never gonna offer me $1.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
He didn't want to.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
And it should show you from the summary judgment that basically,

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
It was a really unfair due process that I wasn't able to have my day in court.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
The damages for myself is that I spent a lot of money on lawyer fees.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
I spent a lot of money within the company.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
The sanctions and this TRO, which had nothing to do with the case,

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
The judge allowed a TRO, which there was really an order to show cause on that day and allowed this, and this TRO took over the case.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
And whatever feelings that me or Mr. Lane had, should have had done nothing to do with the case, but the judge allowed that and it didn't focus on the key parts of this case were that I had a contract with Empory

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
And in that contract, they said they would not damage my secured claim.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
And that's what they did from the beginning.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
And the summary judgment says that I didn't put money into the company, which is a total falsehood.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
You know, my motion today is basically is that there's key evidence in this case that I wasn't allowed to put on because of this TRO.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
There's discovery and not much discovery.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
There's seven or eight different people that I wanted to call that was never allowed to call.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
And I believe that it was due by design from Mr. Lane and Greg Garman.

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
I spent well over $300,000

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
fighting this TRO and everything else.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
And it took away my ability to really have and focus on the core parts of this case, which is that I put money into this business and then showing why Empory created harm to myself.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
All I wanted was a fair shake of getting money, but the professionals and everyone else got money in this case and no one else received $1.

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
You've got about three, I don't mean to interrupt you, you've got about three minutes left.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
Did you want to save the rest of your time, Mr. Drexler?

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, I did.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
All right, thank you.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
Mr. Garment, please go ahead.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
Yes, may it please the panel.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
My name is Greg Garment.

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
I'm counsel to Embree tax-efficient.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
Your Honors, there's obviously a great deal of emotion involved in this case.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
I'm going to spare some of that component, but I think the presentation you heard revolves around the fact that there's animosity associated with the temporary restraining order and a discovery sanctions order.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
Mr. Drexler believes that he has the right to a trial, notwithstanding the fact that there were no disputed issues of material fact.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
How do I know that?

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
I have an order that says your motion is granted, his motion is denied, and it's based on what you said.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
How do I know that?

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
Well, one, you know that, Your Honor, because there were cross motions for summary judgment brought by counsel, skilled counsel for Mr. Drexler.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
We both said these are the undisputed facts.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
This is the discovery record that exists.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
And we both thought to have summary judgment granted on the same issue.

[00:13:58] Speaker 04:
You raise an interesting issue, one that was not raised by the appellant himself, nor was it raised in the context, there was a lawyer involved who drafted the issues for appeal.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
So these are not issues on appeal that were not drafted by a lawyer who was involved in the underlying summary judgment motion.

[00:14:18] Speaker 04:
I think the parties clearly understand what the order is and while

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
best practices might be one in which orders contain everything within their four corners.

[00:14:29] Speaker 04:
It's not uncommon that orders refer to testimony at trial, testimony in discovery that exists outside the order.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
And so one of the great problems that I face in this appeal is there is no evidentiary citation to a record brought by the appellant.

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
And so we attempted to the best we could

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
to put a record before you that shows the factual rendition you heard is not only not supported by a record, it's not supported by a record for among other reasons that it's simply not true.

[00:15:04] Speaker 04:
The things that you heard are not true and they can't be pointed to in a record.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
It is not Mr. Lane who was found to have been harassing in this case.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
A temporary restraining order was issued by Judge Cox in which she found that this appellant was in fact harassing

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
But my client is a hedge fund.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
Well, it was in fact harassing the spouses of the employees of the hedge fund in public at charitable events.

[00:15:30] Speaker 04:
This is a case in which summary judgment was granted because this appellant refused to produce discovery and refused to answer relevant questions in a deposition.

[00:15:42] Speaker 04:
We've cited in our record where the witness said, I won't tell you that today.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
I will only tell the judge when I'm sitting on the stand.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
I admit that I would have liked to have seen a more fulsome order, but orders one, it was not appealed on this basis, which you can reasonably infer means that this appellant understood what the order was when his lawyer raised the issues on appeal that did not include that.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
But orders, summary judgment was granted for the very specific and complete list of issues that we filed with the court and had an evidentiary basis for.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
And so on that point, Your Honor, Judge Cox made specific reference to what the basis was.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
And I think you need to take the totality of the record.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
The issue that summary judgment was granted.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
So we're supposed to dig through the 3,000 pages that you submitted and find the facts that support the granting, the one-sentence granting of your motion.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
If you came to me at a trial court and said, Judge, here's a transcript of it, 200-page transcript of a deposition.

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
The testimony's in there.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
What would we do with that?

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
I completely understand the point you're making, but Your Honor, I'm going to tell you why I don't think those are the facts at hand.

[00:17:12] Speaker 04:
First of all, again, I think I've already said that that wasn't an issue identified by this appellant.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
I have to engage in de novo review.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
How am I supposed to do that here?

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
I'm going to answer your question because I don't mean to be argumentative, but I do think the appellant, while it's a de novo review, I think the appellant bears a burden of persuasion, and the burden of persuasion was not met here.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
But let me answer your question.

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
Um, there is a context to that order that's contained in other relevant orders, including a very closely related discovery sanctions order.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
What this appellant sought by way of the declaratory relief is to say that he had a secured claim that was superior in position to that of MPRI.

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
He refused and was otherwise unable to provide any evidence to the court of the existence of such a note.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
or the existence of underlying facts that would support that note.

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
Judge Cox said, if you do not produce evidence by a date certain, by way of a motion to compel, it will be excluded for purposes of consideration.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
No such evidence was found.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
Judge Cox found in the context of this case that no such evidence was produced by the deadline must be excluded.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
And I believe it was an appropriate thing for her to do to say you cannot prevail and you lose on your declaratory relief claim for a secured claim upon which no evidence can be found in the record.

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
I think it is.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
I think it is.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
not only inappropriate, I think it would be an unfair shifting of the burden to say that the lack of evidence or proving a negative is imposed upon emprey in this case in the context of a summary judgment motion.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
These were cross motions for summary judgment on the same facts.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
And I think that's a key distinction that I would attempt to persuade you, Your Honor, in analyzing the context of this order.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
both parties sought summary judgment on the same issue, and they both understood the same record to exist.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
At the end of the day.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
Mr. Garment?

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
Oh dear, something's happening to Judge Neiman.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
I hope it's not me.

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
It is not you.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
We can hear you.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
Judge Neiman is frozen.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
Let's see if we can get her back.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
I've temporarily stopped the clock.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
Sorry about that.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
My computer connection is unstable.

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
We've got you back.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
And we stopped the clock while you were gone.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
So no problem.

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
What was I going to say?

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
Oh, Mr. Garment, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that there was the same set of facts, but I thought that there was a separate statement of undisputed facts, and then Empory objected to certain of the facts of Mr. Drexler.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
Am I misremembering the

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
No, the posture of what you said is correct, but the context of it is important.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
Mr. Drexler, in his separate statement of undisputed facts, said it was undisputed that a underlying note existed and that funds were paid against that underlying amount.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
That was evidence that was excluded by order of the court because it was not produced in the year of discovery and refused to be answered.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
record that was considered by the court contained exclusions based upon that order that discovery had not been complied with.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
The underlying facts that were decided by the court is the existence of an inter-creditor agreement, what the inter-creditor agreement said.

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
It clearly said that any claim of Mr. Drexler

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
was subordinated to the superior secured claim of empery, but Mr. Drexler had asserted that there were facts which would give rise to a basis for him to invalidate the inter-creditor agreement.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
And Judge Cox found that no such facts had been put forth and no such basis for illegal determination had been put forth.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
So moving on, Your Honors, at the end of the day, I think

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
The presentation that you heard was one in which Mr Drexler admitted that he did not participate in discovery, did not want to answer questions as they related to the discovery sought in connection with the motion for summary judgment.

[00:22:08] Speaker 04:
And he believes that he is entitled to a trial, not withstanding the fact the judge determined that there were no issues for us to try at trial.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
There are allegations made of interference with counsel.

[00:22:22] Speaker 04:
Um, not only is there no record for that, the representations I believe are incorrect and that there was a firm who chose not to, um, represent Mr. Drexler and make an appearance in this case.

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
Um, I have no, I have, I have no ability to do anything other than go beyond the record to say, uh, in response, uh, that, that, that council had a conflict and, and represented one of the members of, of our group.

[00:22:48] Speaker 04:
And we simply raised that issue with council, but again,

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
I am beyond the record undeniably because there was no record to support that allegation.

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
Finally, an argument is made that this is a complicated case and the size of this case justifies foregoing, for lack of a better term, summary judgment motions and we should simply do this at trial.

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
This is a trial that had been extended a number of times.

[00:23:17] Speaker 04:
There was no effort to deny

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
Mr Drexler continuances, Embry consented to continuances of the trial based upon the fires.

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
The discovery that was the basis for all of the motion practice and trial concluded before the fires began.

[00:23:33] Speaker 04:
The judge, as set forth in the record, did continue the trial based upon the fires that existed.

[00:23:39] Speaker 04:
And at the final question by the judge as to whether or not the trial date needed to be extended further, Appellants Council said, no, we're ready to go.

[00:23:50] Speaker 04:
We don't need a further extension of trial.

[00:23:53] Speaker 04:
And so I believe that that cuts off any allegation that the court was insensitive to or denied appellant due process based upon the timing of the court, of the timing of the fires.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
And so wrapping up,

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
My argument for the panel, I believe you've heard a presentation consistent with the pleading and the pleading and the oral argument suggests that this is a case about animosity with an employee of my client.

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
The animosity alleges that he inserted himself in management, something that the record cannot be pointed to because that fact does not exist.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
The existence of an Article IX sale before bankruptcy

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
I will highlight that the record only establishes that Mr. Drexler was the CEO of the debtor who voluntarily chose to file bankruptcy himself.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
He picked his own professionals and counsel, and now suggests that those professionals led him down the wrong path.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
Any allegations you hear about my client making a death threat or similar things are simply

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
Regrettably, they are untrue, is the most kind way to put it.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
And in fact, exactly the threats of exactly the opposite were to be found by Judge Cox, finding that Mr. Drexler was engaged in an ongoing and widespread effort to threaten and harass employees of Emporee and their spouses who have no relationship to the business other than being married to employees.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
And so I do not deny that

[00:25:39] Speaker 04:
best practices would contemplate a broader decision having been made by the court.

[00:25:46] Speaker 04:
But I believe that that order can and should be taken in the context of all of the orders that were close by, including discovery sanctions orders and including the temporary restraining order and the fact that cross motions for summary judgment were brought in upholding it.

[00:26:07] Speaker 04:
And I believe that the fact that that issue was not appealed by the appellant, not identified by his lawyer, not sought reconsideration under a Rule 56 motion is all evidence that stands for the proposition that while those best practices might prove to a longer order in certain circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the parties before this court did not understand the basis of Judge Cox's order.

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
And unless the panel has any further questions, I'll yield the remainder of my time.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
I have no questions.

[00:26:40] Speaker 01:
Anybody else?

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
Mr. Drexler.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
I'm going to finish up.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
And I think the most important thing is my claim.

[00:26:51] Speaker 00:
At the beginning of the bankruptcy, I put a proof of claim, which no one fought me on.

[00:26:58] Speaker 00:
It went through a lot of part of the year.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
The only time that someone asked for any proof of my claim is when the plan

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
was not confirmed.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
The reason why that happened is because everyone knew I put money into the company, I put real money into the company, because that would have been the time at that time to say, okay, I was the first one to put a proof of claim in, first one to put a proof of claim in.

[00:27:28] Speaker 00:
And that was literally probably three months into the bankruptcy.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
Empory and the Garmin firm

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
Asked me for that proof of claim.

[00:27:40] Speaker 00:
A year later.

[00:27:42] Speaker 00:
And what Mr Garmin isn't saying is I produced maybe late.

[00:27:46] Speaker 00:
I produced all the records and I'm not going to go into why I was late or why I wasn't, but the Garmin firm has every bank record.

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
Every bank record and every dollar I put into the company so.

[00:28:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, I was late, but the money was put into the company.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
And

[00:28:09] Speaker 00:
Everyone received that.

[00:28:10] Speaker 00:
And yes, it was late.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
I admit that.

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
And I'm not gonna go into the reasons why it wasn't, and that's not for what we're doing here.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
But all I'm asking is, as Mr. Garman even knows, this is a very complicated case.

[00:28:25] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of moving parts.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
I just asked my right to have a trial just as I thought I was going to.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
And I didn't have a trial.

[00:28:38] Speaker 00:
Uh, I believe it was unfair to have a summary judgment at that point in the case in the beginning.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
I would understand, but at that point of the case.

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
I was, I was relying on to have a trial and bring my case forward and a summary judgment did not allow me to do that.

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
So.

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
I'm asking the panel and again, as you see this 20, 30,000 documents, there's a lot of documents in this case.

[00:29:01] Speaker 00:
And.

[00:29:02] Speaker 00:
The important part is I did put the money in the company.

[00:29:04] Speaker 00:
The Garmin firm has all my numbers that I did.

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
They can't deny that.

[00:29:09] Speaker 00:
And no one fought me on my proof of claim for literally a year.

[00:29:13] Speaker 00:
And the only time they did is when they didn't get that plan approved.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
So that is my closing comments.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
I thank you for your time and thank you very much.

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
All right, thank you both for your good arguments.

[00:29:28] Speaker 01:
This matter will be submitted.

[00:29:30] Speaker 01:
We will issue a decision promptly.

[00:29:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:36] Speaker 01:
Madam Clerk, would you please call the next case?